Palin was right...
- Thread starter bigzit
- Start date
Its obvious that Russia wants to recapture the old Soviet Union states because Putin and those in the Kremilin believe that the US is now a weakling in the world who believes Russia's (and others) way of doing things (political oppression) has merit. The only thing they fear is force imo and since Obama has deminished our role in the world for some new conceived idea of internationalism and engendered the idea that we are and will be politically and militarily weaker as a safety device, there isn't anything stopping their (Russian) "grab".
Question: Who is more at risk for military conflict, a nation with a strong military or one that seems to be slowly disbanding it? Is peace through strength a real concept or does it just put us all at higher risk? Were we the strongest, most prosperous nation after WWII because we had the greatest military machine or because we had the greatest most vibrant economy? Or was it both? And are we trending, under Obama, in the upward direction or down. Would you feal safer if our military AND economy was below that of Russia, China, etc.?
This post was edited on 3/2 11:04 AM by rabidTU
Question: Who is more at risk for military conflict, a nation with a strong military or one that seems to be slowly disbanding it? Is peace through strength a real concept or does it just put us all at higher risk? Were we the strongest, most prosperous nation after WWII because we had the greatest military machine or because we had the greatest most vibrant economy? Or was it both? And are we trending, under Obama, in the upward direction or down. Would you feal safer if our military AND economy was below that of Russia, China, etc.?
This post was edited on 3/2 11:04 AM by rabidTU
Putin owned Obama IMO on Syria and Iraq. He laughed at him when he demanded Snowden be returned to the U.S. It's no surprise he now believes he can act with impunity with regards to the former Soviet states. I fully expect Putin to now increase Russia's presence in the Western Hemisphere. Understand who he is....a former special forces commando. Seems as if he's playing chess while we're playing marbles.
This post was edited on 3/2 1:39 PM by lawpoke87
This post was edited on 3/2 1:39 PM by lawpoke87
I'm certainly no Putin, but if he succeeds in humiliating the west (and us) in Ukraine and adding them back to his sphere of influence and reconnecting the old USSR republics, he'll re-establish Russia's military presence in Cuba just to spite us and dare Obama to be JFK. At this point, there won't be a 2014 version of the 1960's when the OAS condemned them and give us a reason to act to prevent them.
Backpatting and hugging these communist/socialist dictators may satisfy BHO, but to them it just shows how naive and uninformed he is on world affairs. I know that kind of timidity is popular at the NYT and the mainstream media networks, but in the end, you have to deal with these totalitarian thugs with a shoulder holster under your coat just to get their attention.
This post was edited on 3/2 2:01 PM by rabidTU
Backpatting and hugging these communist/socialist dictators may satisfy BHO, but to them it just shows how naive and uninformed he is on world affairs. I know that kind of timidity is popular at the NYT and the mainstream media networks, but in the end, you have to deal with these totalitarian thugs with a shoulder holster under your coat just to get their attention.
This post was edited on 3/2 2:01 PM by rabidTU
Its going to be hard for BHO to justify defending Ukraines border security when he has been so indifferent about defending and protecting our own. Putin will surely bring that up. He'll say something like "you control your border and we'll control ours".
Its 3:00 in the morning and the red phone in the Oval office is
ringing.
Too bad there is no Leadership in this administration to handle
the situation.
ringing.
Too bad there is no Leadership in this administration to handle
the situation.
Putin did work for the KGB. However, his first job was a brief stay with the Second Directorate (counter intelligence). He did the rest of his time with the First Directorate (foreign intelligence) in Leningrad and Eastern Europe (primarily Dresden). The First Directorate is in charge of recruiting and running "assets" (foreign nationals who spy for you).
He trained in Sambo (Russian martial art) and then shifted to Judo and a variation of Karate. Putin was never an overt or covert asset deployed in direct operations (in other words, he was neither special forces or a commando). That being said, all of the Second Directorate personnel would have had training in E&E (escape and evasion) and various types of "trade craft" (passing messages, codes, cyphers, observation and avoiding same, etc.).
The KGB had two active duty "commando" units during the latter part of the Cold War (both still exist today and are part of the FSB). Spetsgruppa Vympel is tasked with personnel and facility security. Spetsgruppa Alpha (al'fa) is primarily a counter-terrorist unit. Putin had no time with either unit while working at the KGB. Both (along with a few others) are commonly grouped under the title "Spetsnaz" which means "special purpose force" and is only used by foreign journalists and in movies (you can pretty much tell when somebody has no clue when they refer to Spetsnaz as an entity or unit).
We have zero options for the Ukraine. The Russians are just "enforcing" a long term lease the obtained on the base at Sebastapol in 1997 (they traded half of the Black Sea Squadron to Ukraine for rights to the base). Their next move is most likely to enforce some sort of land corridor from Russia to the Crimean Peninsula (so they can supply the base .. their navy kind of sucks right now). Our only choices would be airborne, naval (which means forcing a passage up the Dardanelles and putting our ships in a shooting gallery) or special forces. The special forces option was used in Georgia a few years ago and worked pretty well .... but ....... Georgia had a nice mountain range to use as a natural barrier which the Ukraine lacks. Needless to say, the press and State are missing the "real" reasons for the Ukrainian intervention (but what is new). We have no leverage whatsoever with the Russians. Syria and Iran already showed us that problem.
I tend to agree with the thought that Putin pretty much owns Obama (as does Assad and the generals in Egypt and the Mullahs in Tehran and .......). The problem with making tough statements and never backing them up is you end up with zero credibility. Obama has mishandled each and ever crisis (including the much vaunted surge in Afghanistan) that involves any sort of violence. Speak loudly and carry no stick will never work in foreign relations regardless of how many times you show up with a reset button.
He trained in Sambo (Russian martial art) and then shifted to Judo and a variation of Karate. Putin was never an overt or covert asset deployed in direct operations (in other words, he was neither special forces or a commando). That being said, all of the Second Directorate personnel would have had training in E&E (escape and evasion) and various types of "trade craft" (passing messages, codes, cyphers, observation and avoiding same, etc.).
The KGB had two active duty "commando" units during the latter part of the Cold War (both still exist today and are part of the FSB). Spetsgruppa Vympel is tasked with personnel and facility security. Spetsgruppa Alpha (al'fa) is primarily a counter-terrorist unit. Putin had no time with either unit while working at the KGB. Both (along with a few others) are commonly grouped under the title "Spetsnaz" which means "special purpose force" and is only used by foreign journalists and in movies (you can pretty much tell when somebody has no clue when they refer to Spetsnaz as an entity or unit).
We have zero options for the Ukraine. The Russians are just "enforcing" a long term lease the obtained on the base at Sebastapol in 1997 (they traded half of the Black Sea Squadron to Ukraine for rights to the base). Their next move is most likely to enforce some sort of land corridor from Russia to the Crimean Peninsula (so they can supply the base .. their navy kind of sucks right now). Our only choices would be airborne, naval (which means forcing a passage up the Dardanelles and putting our ships in a shooting gallery) or special forces. The special forces option was used in Georgia a few years ago and worked pretty well .... but ....... Georgia had a nice mountain range to use as a natural barrier which the Ukraine lacks. Needless to say, the press and State are missing the "real" reasons for the Ukrainian intervention (but what is new). We have no leverage whatsoever with the Russians. Syria and Iran already showed us that problem.
I tend to agree with the thought that Putin pretty much owns Obama (as does Assad and the generals in Egypt and the Mullahs in Tehran and .......). The problem with making tough statements and never backing them up is you end up with zero credibility. Obama has mishandled each and ever crisis (including the much vaunted surge in Afghanistan) that involves any sort of violence. Speak loudly and carry no stick will never work in foreign relations regardless of how many times you show up with a reset button.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16644428/video/103646521-sarah-palin-obama-s-indecision-moral-equivalence-would-encourage-russia-to-invade-ukraine
This post was edited on 3/3 9:43 PM by rabidTU
This post was edited on 3/3 9:43 PM by rabidTU
rabid...
Sarah Palin being correct one time in 6 years doesn't make her the Oracle. The lady is still a nut job! If the Republicans truly want to win back the White House they to need to put together an electable team. The Palin's, Ryan's, etc... of the Republican party are not electable to the general public. They both came across as little whiners, I refused to allow that kind of behavior from my 3rd, 4th & 5th graders and I sure don't want to see it in the White House. Before you classify me as a liberal, I will tell you that Obama was not my choice either. I felt his policies moved to far to the left and omitted the middle class American citizen.
Sarah Palin being correct one time in 6 years doesn't make her the Oracle. The lady is still a nut job! If the Republicans truly want to win back the White House they to need to put together an electable team. The Palin's, Ryan's, etc... of the Republican party are not electable to the general public. They both came across as little whiners, I refused to allow that kind of behavior from my 3rd, 4th & 5th graders and I sure don't want to see it in the White House. Before you classify me as a liberal, I will tell you that Obama was not my choice either. I felt his policies moved to far to the left and omitted the middle class American citizen.
I'm not a supporter of her either. But if she was right, she was right. Was Obama? Kerry? About anything for that matter.
Anyone who thinks Obama, Biden, Kerry or the wife of that sexual preditor who used to be in the WH is right about anything, isn't paying attention. imo
But Obama stated that Romney was out of touch during the campaign and that "the cold war's been over for decades" as if he (a community agitator) knew anything on the subject. Its pretty obvious that Obama is naive, ill prepared for his job and just reflects what was discussed in the lounges and dinner parties at Harvard and Occidental. Nothing else.
It wasn't long ago that John Kerry was pushing how dangerous "global warming" was and that it was the worlds greatest threat (ridiculously inaccurate due to the kind of winter we are experiencing).
So is it the biggest threat now? Is it even the duty of a Secretary of State to push for that in the light of the dangers we face in the world today? IMO These people are really, really out of touch and they expect us to be that too!
Here it is.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/secretary-of-state-john-kerry-calls-climate-change-the-worlds-biggest-threat/article/2539294
This post was edited on 3/4 3:49 AM by rabidTU
Just wait until "Vlad" attempts to justify Russia invading and taking back Ukraine by using our own Civil War as an example. He has already stated that the "invasion" was launched to protect ethnic Russians from some sort of harm. (Thats always what is done to justify every overreach by govt - including our own - "we're just here to help" - get it?).
That excuse is the beginning of the propaganda campaign to silence any opposition to the invasion. This argument will be used to turn Obama upside down because in the view of the world, there will be very little difference between what Putin is doing and what Lincoln did in 1861 - a war to reunite a country over the rights of an ethnic group . That was what our own Civil War was about and what Putin can use as his own justification for action. Thus he becomes Lincoln in the eyes of many nations.
This was or should have been predictable since Obama's very close (politically speaking) to the Russians to begin with.
This post was edited on 3/4 10:02 AM by rabidTU
That excuse is the beginning of the propaganda campaign to silence any opposition to the invasion. This argument will be used to turn Obama upside down because in the view of the world, there will be very little difference between what Putin is doing and what Lincoln did in 1861 - a war to reunite a country over the rights of an ethnic group . That was what our own Civil War was about and what Putin can use as his own justification for action. Thus he becomes Lincoln in the eyes of many nations.
This was or should have been predictable since Obama's very close (politically speaking) to the Russians to begin with.
This post was edited on 3/4 10:02 AM by rabidTU
rabid...
I agree with most, if not all of our national politicians are out of touch with the general public. They are all to busy trying to appease the lobbyist and money people that get them elected.
The republicans have attached themselves to the 1% teet.
While the Democrats have attached themselves to the special interest minority groups on the other end of the spectrum.
All-in-all both parties have told middle America to take a hike!
I agree with most, if not all of our national politicians are out of touch with the general public. They are all to busy trying to appease the lobbyist and money people that get them elected.
The republicans have attached themselves to the 1% teet.
While the Democrats have attached themselves to the special interest minority groups on the other end of the spectrum.
All-in-all both parties have told middle America to take a hike!
I certainly agree with that! That's a major reason why I am no longer a member of either party and my only recourse in cleaning up the system is to be an independent. But just remember that the democrats (Obama) got the majority of special interest money compared to the Republicans (Romney) in 2012. So on that scale, they are just a little bit worse than their competitors.
This post was edited on 3/4 10:15 AM by rabidTU
Thanks Old Goat excellent post
The Ukraine will continue to look West to get out from the control of the old Soviet influence. No matter what Putin tries to do.
These things require time, I'm talking about decades but the Ukraine will still keep looking West IMHO. Mainly to Europe. Too bad for the present population in the Ukraine as Russia will have a huge influence on politics and their economy for the present time. I don't think the US nor Europe is going to do a damn thing about it. But ultimately the Russians will lose in the long run.
One thing is for sure, Russia will always be in Crimea. No big deal they have been there forever and will not get out anytime soon. I'm not blaming Obama on that one.
The West needs to continue to foster our relations with the Turks and the Greeks. They are the first line in defense, good luck to the Russian Navy getting through the Bosphorus.
GO TU!!!
The Ukraine will continue to look West to get out from the control of the old Soviet influence. No matter what Putin tries to do.
These things require time, I'm talking about decades but the Ukraine will still keep looking West IMHO. Mainly to Europe. Too bad for the present population in the Ukraine as Russia will have a huge influence on politics and their economy for the present time. I don't think the US nor Europe is going to do a damn thing about it. But ultimately the Russians will lose in the long run.
One thing is for sure, Russia will always be in Crimea. No big deal they have been there forever and will not get out anytime soon. I'm not blaming Obama on that one.
The West needs to continue to foster our relations with the Turks and the Greeks. They are the first line in defense, good luck to the Russian Navy getting through the Bosphorus.
GO TU!!!
Europe can't do much. They are too dependent upon Russian natural gas to offer any other than token resistance. Russia has to be extremely careful if they engage in military action. The Russian natural gas link to Europe runs through Ukraine and damage to the pipelines would be catastrophic (see "special forces" in the previous note). We really don't care because the Russian Black Sea Squadron is a joke and offers no threat to our interests. All that being said..... this whole situation appears to be about natural gas .... which impacts the Russian economy ...... and Vlad's pocketbook.
Russia's energy exports make up roughly 25% of their $2 trillion economy. Additionally, 70% of export revenue and 50% of all federal revenues come from energy exports. Most of those exports go to Europe. You may recall that, after the first election he won, Putin "nationalized" a lot of oil and gas companies then sold them back to his buddies. He kept a stake in all of that action. Neither the Russian economy or Valdimir's personal portfolio can handle a threat to energy exports.
Enter Ukraine. As noted, a lot of pipelines run via the Ukraine east to Europe or south to Turkey. Those pipelines carry Russian natural gas. Additionally, Ukraine has recently discovered several gas fields (and no small amount of oil) both on land and in the Black Sea (three major gas fields off the shore of ..... you guessed it ..... Crimea).
A couple of years ago Ukraine started considering a move to a more Western-centric geopolitical stance (basically closer ties to the Eurozone). This, combined with the pipelines and gas discoveries (pretty easy to put Ukrainian natural gas into the pipelines instead of Russian) was a major threat to the Russian economy. So they co-opted the Ukrainian President with loans, bribes (there are some significant "loans and payments" missing) and threats. The President then opted for a pro-Russian stance and riots broke out (notably in the West where the population has fewer Russians). President orders troops to shoot protesters, protesters fight back, President leaves. Russian does what they have to do to ensure that 70% of their export revenue isn't threatened.
Wars are typically fought over natural resources and population pressures (yes, even the Crusades). While borders and religion may seem to be primary causal factors, should one look hard enough one tends to find resources and population at the heart of national conflicts. The Russian invasion of Georgia was all about access to the Black Sea gas reserves. Same story with Ukraine (with a bit of cereal grain production thrown in for good measure).
The only real issue with our handling of the Ukraine is the constant need this administration has to make threats and then do nothing. We cannot and should not be directly involved with the Ukrainian situation. Putin knows that. Threats and political posturing serve only to further erode our credibility as an international power.
Thanks and BEAT ARMY!
Russia's energy exports make up roughly 25% of their $2 trillion economy. Additionally, 70% of export revenue and 50% of all federal revenues come from energy exports. Most of those exports go to Europe. You may recall that, after the first election he won, Putin "nationalized" a lot of oil and gas companies then sold them back to his buddies. He kept a stake in all of that action. Neither the Russian economy or Valdimir's personal portfolio can handle a threat to energy exports.
Enter Ukraine. As noted, a lot of pipelines run via the Ukraine east to Europe or south to Turkey. Those pipelines carry Russian natural gas. Additionally, Ukraine has recently discovered several gas fields (and no small amount of oil) both on land and in the Black Sea (three major gas fields off the shore of ..... you guessed it ..... Crimea).
A couple of years ago Ukraine started considering a move to a more Western-centric geopolitical stance (basically closer ties to the Eurozone). This, combined with the pipelines and gas discoveries (pretty easy to put Ukrainian natural gas into the pipelines instead of Russian) was a major threat to the Russian economy. So they co-opted the Ukrainian President with loans, bribes (there are some significant "loans and payments" missing) and threats. The President then opted for a pro-Russian stance and riots broke out (notably in the West where the population has fewer Russians). President orders troops to shoot protesters, protesters fight back, President leaves. Russian does what they have to do to ensure that 70% of their export revenue isn't threatened.
Wars are typically fought over natural resources and population pressures (yes, even the Crusades). While borders and religion may seem to be primary causal factors, should one look hard enough one tends to find resources and population at the heart of national conflicts. The Russian invasion of Georgia was all about access to the Black Sea gas reserves. Same story with Ukraine (with a bit of cereal grain production thrown in for good measure).
The only real issue with our handling of the Ukraine is the constant need this administration has to make threats and then do nothing. We cannot and should not be directly involved with the Ukrainian situation. Putin knows that. Threats and political posturing serve only to further erode our credibility as an international power.
Thanks and BEAT ARMY!
IMO Putin judges a nation on the strength of its leadership. Right now under Obama we are in a mode of reduce, withdraw, apologize and regret. Everything that Obama has done has been a retreat as seen in the eyes of our enemies. Reductions in the nuclear arsenal. troop levels, defense spending etc.
What I do not want to see is a rebirth of the old Soviet Union that was dismantled decades ago. That will further diminish our position in the world. That would become the double whammy of having two worldwide enemies of the arab jihadist underground and a new soviet threat armed to the tooth. But imo Putin is currently the strongest leader in the world in spite of their comparatively (to ours) small economy ($2 trillion to $16 trillion).
BTW, the reason our economy is so large compared to theirs has been our tried and true embrace of capitalism instead of socialism. But, under a big spending Obama, (and our unmamanageable debt) how long will that really be so?
Is the world a better place if our enemies (according to Mitt, but not Barak) are strong and we are weak?
What I do not want to see is a rebirth of the old Soviet Union that was dismantled decades ago. That will further diminish our position in the world. That would become the double whammy of having two worldwide enemies of the arab jihadist underground and a new soviet threat armed to the tooth. But imo Putin is currently the strongest leader in the world in spite of their comparatively (to ours) small economy ($2 trillion to $16 trillion).
BTW, the reason our economy is so large compared to theirs has been our tried and true embrace of capitalism instead of socialism. But, under a big spending Obama, (and our unmamanageable debt) how long will that really be so?
Is the world a better place if our enemies (according to Mitt, but not Barak) are strong and we are weak?
Hey Goat help me on this one,
During the Georgia conflict a year or two ago. Didn't the Russians kind of expose their military to critic. In other words did the conventional army of Russia look like something out of the Korean Era?
I'm asking but I thought some American military experts were laughing at the Russian hardware.
Thanks in advance
GO TU!!!
During the Georgia conflict a year or two ago. Didn't the Russians kind of expose their military to critic. In other words did the conventional army of Russia look like something out of the Korean Era?
I'm asking but I thought some American military experts were laughing at the Russian hardware.
Thanks in advance
GO TU!!!
Putin is not judging a nation. Putin is judging a situation. More precisely, he is evaluating "capabilities and intentions" within a given situation. For Ukraine, his opponents have limited capabilities so all intentions are moot. The only card the Ukraine can play is to disrupt or destroy the pipelines which would cause an immediate negative response from both sides (Europe and Russia).
You are making a common mistake if you attempt to evaluate a situation based on one leader's opinion of another or the proverbial "balance of power". Overall, our willingness to threaten sans eventual action is a problem. Within the context of any given situation or event it may or may not be relevant.
In example, our "intentions" vis a vis Ukraine may well be to form a democracy that is tied to the West. Unfortunately, logistics coupled with the realities of the gas supply situation mean that we have no capabilities. We can't move enough troops into the region to use conventional forces and the only viable non-convential approach that threatens Russian interests (the pipelines) also threaten European interests. So, no capabilities.
Hmmm ...... more simply put, without a happy meeting of both "intention" and "capability" the motivations of a leader or country are of no consequence. This specific situation (Ukraine) is not a result of any action or inaction on the part of our current administration. Other specific situations (Syria and Egypt, in example) are different and can arguably be considered a direct failure of the current administration since we had the capability to effect a different outcome.
I hope that made sense.
You are making a common mistake if you attempt to evaluate a situation based on one leader's opinion of another or the proverbial "balance of power". Overall, our willingness to threaten sans eventual action is a problem. Within the context of any given situation or event it may or may not be relevant.
In example, our "intentions" vis a vis Ukraine may well be to form a democracy that is tied to the West. Unfortunately, logistics coupled with the realities of the gas supply situation mean that we have no capabilities. We can't move enough troops into the region to use conventional forces and the only viable non-convential approach that threatens Russian interests (the pipelines) also threaten European interests. So, no capabilities.
Hmmm ...... more simply put, without a happy meeting of both "intention" and "capability" the motivations of a leader or country are of no consequence. This specific situation (Ukraine) is not a result of any action or inaction on the part of our current administration. Other specific situations (Syria and Egypt, in example) are different and can arguably be considered a direct failure of the current administration since we had the capability to effect a different outcome.
I hope that made sense.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Old Goat. We have never had the ability to act militarily in Eastern Europe. Obama's weakness doesn't help but it is not the reason.
Let's look at history. Berlin blockade we did nothing but fly in supplies. Hungary in 1956 [?] nothing. Czechoslovakia [68?] nothing. Poland in the 70's nothing. It would be the equivalent of Russia trying to stop us from doing something on the Montana/Canada boarder. Eastern Europe is where Western Armies go to commit suicide. Ask Napoleon or Hitler.
I don't normally defend Obama and I'm really not doing that here. He certainly has been no friend to our military. His bluffing several times with Syria and talk of reducing our Army may hurt elsewhere, but in any event, we would have no cards to play in the Ukraine. No more than Russia had when we invaded Grenada or deposed Noriega from Panama.
Our military is based on the land/sea/air concept. In Eastern Europe we would have the advantage in none of those. Military action would be a fool's errand.
.
This post was edited on 3/5 4:05 PM by TUMe
Let's look at history. Berlin blockade we did nothing but fly in supplies. Hungary in 1956 [?] nothing. Czechoslovakia [68?] nothing. Poland in the 70's nothing. It would be the equivalent of Russia trying to stop us from doing something on the Montana/Canada boarder. Eastern Europe is where Western Armies go to commit suicide. Ask Napoleon or Hitler.
I don't normally defend Obama and I'm really not doing that here. He certainly has been no friend to our military. His bluffing several times with Syria and talk of reducing our Army may hurt elsewhere, but in any event, we would have no cards to play in the Ukraine. No more than Russia had when we invaded Grenada or deposed Noriega from Panama.
Our military is based on the land/sea/air concept. In Eastern Europe we would have the advantage in none of those. Military action would be a fool's errand.
.
This post was edited on 3/5 4:05 PM by TUMe
Geo ... short answer is yes. The Georgian debacle once again exposed the "strong like bull, smart like tractor" approach the Russians take to hardware and training. Even the Georgians ditched their Russian built equipment after that little debacle. To be honest, Russian tactics and equipment have advanced very little from the stuff worked for them in WW2. Better tanks and faster jets but they are still working from a "casualties? what casualties??" mind set.
Longer answer ..... the Russians for years based their military equipment on designs that they stole from the West. Aside from tanks (which they were pretty good at until the advent of Chobham armor and DU penetrators) they stole naval and aircraft designs, reverse engineered same and the put a variant into production. The Mig-25 was nothing but an Avro Arrow with bad materials. Mig-29 and SU-27 were direct results of the XF-17 (lost competition to the F-16 and eventually became the F-18) project. Backfire is a slightly larger F-111 and Blackjack is a slightly larger B-1. One big reason they lost the Cold War was because they did not have the technical or manufacturing base to reverse engineer the stuff that they stole quickly enough (if at all). By the mid 1980s, our gear (down to unit level radios) was so advanced that the Soviets could no longer steal it. Since they had based R&D on stolen trinkets, they quickly fell behind.
This reality didn't show up for the public until we go into the first Gulf War. Basically our aircraft were invulnerable to the best the Soviet Union had to offer in aircraft, pilot training and anti-air defenses. If you have invested heavily in Soviet gear and tactics, the four day destruction of the Iraqi army (and the nightly visits to downtown Baghdad) is pretty unsettling (imagine sitting in the Kremlin watching CNN broadcast the complete failure of your best systems on live TV). Our tanks could simply back out of range of the Iraqi T62s, T72s and T80s, shoot them and move on. Our units used GPS (brand new and secret) to maneuver in otherwise impassable desert territory. Our equipment and soldiers used night vision to great advantage. Russian tanks (due to the position of shells to allow the use of an auto-loader ... a whole 'nuther missive) simply blew up when we hit them.
Since that time, multiple actions have confirmed the abysmal nature of Soviet military equipment. During the Ethopian/Eritiran war, both sides used Russian aircraft and missiles. While the planes flew, the Russian air to air missiles either didn't launch, fell off the airframe without motor ignition or failed to track. Basically neither side cold hit the others aircraft using the Russian missiles (comparably, the US missiles of similar types have a 90%+ probability of kill).
The Georgians were able to use some very simple anti-air systems to take down several (6 - 12) Russian planes (including an advanced Backfire recon plan that was supposed to be super secret and highly capable). The Russians were unable to suppress the Georgian anti-air units and was forced to over run them with ground forces. The Georgina armored forces were no match for the Russian T-80s but, surprising to the Russians, multiple T-80s were lost to man portable anti-tank missiles (either Israeli or US design). The Russian 58th Army (used for the incursion) had twice the men, five times the tanks and 10 times the AFVs of the entire Georgian Army. Ground force losses for the Russians were never determined outside of personnel (70 KIA, 280 WIA claimed by Russia, total of 1700 claimed by Georgia, truth is in the middle someplace). Given the preponderance of forces and preparation, the Russian performance both for men and material was pretty sketchy. The Georgians destroyed 10 - 15 Russian tanks and another 30 - 40 AFVs.
The Russian C3 (command, communication and control) broke down completely. In one instance, a Russian general took a satellite phone from a reporter to control his units because his comm gear was useless. The Russians had no precision guided capability with their air to ground munitions. The Russian armor (on both sides) performed poorly and the Russian aircraft were easily shot down by older model (AA-11) Russian anti-air missiles. The Russians won due to preparation and vastly superior forces.
With regard to Ukraine, you have to remember that both sides have Russian equipment and training. So, the side with the bigger numbers will always win.
Let me know if you have more specific queries.
Thanks!
Longer answer ..... the Russians for years based their military equipment on designs that they stole from the West. Aside from tanks (which they were pretty good at until the advent of Chobham armor and DU penetrators) they stole naval and aircraft designs, reverse engineered same and the put a variant into production. The Mig-25 was nothing but an Avro Arrow with bad materials. Mig-29 and SU-27 were direct results of the XF-17 (lost competition to the F-16 and eventually became the F-18) project. Backfire is a slightly larger F-111 and Blackjack is a slightly larger B-1. One big reason they lost the Cold War was because they did not have the technical or manufacturing base to reverse engineer the stuff that they stole quickly enough (if at all). By the mid 1980s, our gear (down to unit level radios) was so advanced that the Soviets could no longer steal it. Since they had based R&D on stolen trinkets, they quickly fell behind.
This reality didn't show up for the public until we go into the first Gulf War. Basically our aircraft were invulnerable to the best the Soviet Union had to offer in aircraft, pilot training and anti-air defenses. If you have invested heavily in Soviet gear and tactics, the four day destruction of the Iraqi army (and the nightly visits to downtown Baghdad) is pretty unsettling (imagine sitting in the Kremlin watching CNN broadcast the complete failure of your best systems on live TV). Our tanks could simply back out of range of the Iraqi T62s, T72s and T80s, shoot them and move on. Our units used GPS (brand new and secret) to maneuver in otherwise impassable desert territory. Our equipment and soldiers used night vision to great advantage. Russian tanks (due to the position of shells to allow the use of an auto-loader ... a whole 'nuther missive) simply blew up when we hit them.
Since that time, multiple actions have confirmed the abysmal nature of Soviet military equipment. During the Ethopian/Eritiran war, both sides used Russian aircraft and missiles. While the planes flew, the Russian air to air missiles either didn't launch, fell off the airframe without motor ignition or failed to track. Basically neither side cold hit the others aircraft using the Russian missiles (comparably, the US missiles of similar types have a 90%+ probability of kill).
The Georgians were able to use some very simple anti-air systems to take down several (6 - 12) Russian planes (including an advanced Backfire recon plan that was supposed to be super secret and highly capable). The Russians were unable to suppress the Georgian anti-air units and was forced to over run them with ground forces. The Georgina armored forces were no match for the Russian T-80s but, surprising to the Russians, multiple T-80s were lost to man portable anti-tank missiles (either Israeli or US design). The Russian 58th Army (used for the incursion) had twice the men, five times the tanks and 10 times the AFVs of the entire Georgian Army. Ground force losses for the Russians were never determined outside of personnel (70 KIA, 280 WIA claimed by Russia, total of 1700 claimed by Georgia, truth is in the middle someplace). Given the preponderance of forces and preparation, the Russian performance both for men and material was pretty sketchy. The Georgians destroyed 10 - 15 Russian tanks and another 30 - 40 AFVs.
The Russian C3 (command, communication and control) broke down completely. In one instance, a Russian general took a satellite phone from a reporter to control his units because his comm gear was useless. The Russians had no precision guided capability with their air to ground munitions. The Russian armor (on both sides) performed poorly and the Russian aircraft were easily shot down by older model (AA-11) Russian anti-air missiles. The Russians won due to preparation and vastly superior forces.
With regard to Ukraine, you have to remember that both sides have Russian equipment and training. So, the side with the bigger numbers will always win.
Let me know if you have more specific queries.
Thanks!
Old Goat, everything you say is true. Our military and equipment are vastly superior to the same forces in Russia. But you have to get it there and in sufficient numbers. I couldn't help but chuckle today when went sent over 6 F-15s. We couldn't pick a worse location. Assuming that Ukraine was to try to take Crimea back, they would be faced with a superior enemy in place, so you are correct that it is not only Russian equipment against Russians but it is also the JV against the Varsity.
I think there is zero chance of the US becoming involved short of Poland being attacked. We learned in Korea with the Chinese that you may have the better army but it matters little if you can't kill them as fast as they keep coming. You alluded to that in your post. There has been a tradition [unspoken] that when Russia and the US might come into conflict, one side declines battle. We have been a little cavalier about who we invite into NATO. Would the alliance really go to war over Estonia? Fortunate, Ukraine isn't a member.
In Gulf I, we sent the 82nd Airborne in just across the boarder from Saddam's then intact army, vastly outnumbered. I'm sure there was a strong implied threat there, one you might not attempt with another nuclear power.
We have the best stuff, but it will stay on the shelf.
I think there is zero chance of the US becoming involved short of Poland being attacked. We learned in Korea with the Chinese that you may have the better army but it matters little if you can't kill them as fast as they keep coming. You alluded to that in your post. There has been a tradition [unspoken] that when Russia and the US might come into conflict, one side declines battle. We have been a little cavalier about who we invite into NATO. Would the alliance really go to war over Estonia? Fortunate, Ukraine isn't a member.
In Gulf I, we sent the 82nd Airborne in just across the boarder from Saddam's then intact army, vastly outnumbered. I'm sure there was a strong implied threat there, one you might not attempt with another nuclear power.
We have the best stuff, but it will stay on the shelf.
Me, you are correct. We have zero ability to project force into the area. We can put naval units in the Black Sea but they would be in range of land based Russian aircraft and missiles. Bad idea. Beyond that, the deployment of 6 "Strike Eagles" to Poland with nothing but a tanker is a joke. You see a few C-5s full or ordinance and ground support personnel following them, different story.
Yes, the 82nd's visit to Saudi Arabia was to provide a "trip wire force" similar to our deployments in South Korea. Implied threat is that, regardless of administration, you kill our guys and we will kill more of yours. To be honest, I am not sure that really works anymore (unanticipated consequence of the constant "don't cross this line" rhetoric) and would not want to be deployed in that fashion under this administration. That's a different topic.
You can get a nice overview of our current force structure in Europe here:
http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/units.htm
As you will note, we have one armored unit assigned to the Joint Multinational Training Command (zero to six tanks currently deployed .... they were moving some back but I am not sure if they are on-site). Beyond that, all combat units are light (airborne or Stryker). Most of our presence is in support roles. The majority of the combat power assigned to Europe is home right now (1st Cav and 3rd ID). Even the 2nd CR has gone to Strykers and is primarily rotating through Ashkanistan. In other words, even if the Russians want to take all of Ukraine and move on into Poland, we don't have forces available to stop them. We also lack the sea lift capability to move the forces quickly (if at all).
Based on the vote taken in the Crimean Parliament, I'd say this one is just about over. Look for the Baltic States that are former Soviet countries to ask NATO for some serious treaty commitments and deployments soon. Your point on NATO membership is well made ...... however ....... our lack of forward deployed forces means that the Brits and Huns have to do the heavy lifting for a change. Combined with the Russian stranglehold on gas supplies (and the implied catastrophic economic impact if they withhold same), NATO isn't going to do much of anything to the Russians. Should be interesting.
Thanks!
Yes, the 82nd's visit to Saudi Arabia was to provide a "trip wire force" similar to our deployments in South Korea. Implied threat is that, regardless of administration, you kill our guys and we will kill more of yours. To be honest, I am not sure that really works anymore (unanticipated consequence of the constant "don't cross this line" rhetoric) and would not want to be deployed in that fashion under this administration. That's a different topic.
You can get a nice overview of our current force structure in Europe here:
http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/units.htm
As you will note, we have one armored unit assigned to the Joint Multinational Training Command (zero to six tanks currently deployed .... they were moving some back but I am not sure if they are on-site). Beyond that, all combat units are light (airborne or Stryker). Most of our presence is in support roles. The majority of the combat power assigned to Europe is home right now (1st Cav and 3rd ID). Even the 2nd CR has gone to Strykers and is primarily rotating through Ashkanistan. In other words, even if the Russians want to take all of Ukraine and move on into Poland, we don't have forces available to stop them. We also lack the sea lift capability to move the forces quickly (if at all).
Based on the vote taken in the Crimean Parliament, I'd say this one is just about over. Look for the Baltic States that are former Soviet countries to ask NATO for some serious treaty commitments and deployments soon. Your point on NATO membership is well made ...... however ....... our lack of forward deployed forces means that the Brits and Huns have to do the heavy lifting for a change. Combined with the Russian stranglehold on gas supplies (and the implied catastrophic economic impact if they withhold same), NATO isn't going to do much of anything to the Russians. Should be interesting.
Thanks!
I was in the 2nd ACR on the CZ border before my Asian Vacation with the Cav. Of course, the Polizei probably patrol that border now. But it shows how much our forces have been drawn down. It's been nice having years without a massive European presence. I don't know what our deficit would look like if we had maintained it. I hope Europe will step up and maintain their own defense.
BhO is in an uncomfortable position on this. He supported the
Ukraine Government.
Sort of like when he supported the Musician Brotherhood when they
too control of the Egypt government.
We seem to end up on the wrong side when it comes to foreign policy.
Gee!!!!!!! Who was Sec of stae at the time.
teign
Ukraine Government.
Sort of like when he supported the Musician Brotherhood when they
too control of the Egypt government.
We seem to end up on the wrong side when it comes to foreign policy.
Gee!!!!!!! Who was Sec of stae at the time.
teign
Please give us the non-queer Lindsay Graham argument. What do you think you think Qaddafi and UBL think? What is in our strategic interest or capability to prevent a Crimean takeover besides a whole bunch of needless deaths and economic destruction?
BTW, in six years our stock market has more than doubled, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are the highest they have ever been recorded, our job market has improved tremendously, and access to medical care is greater than it has ever been.
The only bigger joke is listening or reading clowns like you post about
you know nothing about.
BTW, in six years our stock market has more than doubled, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are the highest they have ever been recorded, our job market has improved tremendously, and access to medical care is greater than it has ever been.
The only bigger joke is listening or reading clowns like you post about
you know nothing about.
Was that one directed at me?Originally posted by goldfan83:
Please give us the non-queer Lindsay Graham argument. What do you think you think Qaddafi and UBL think? What is in our strategic interest or capability to prevent a Crimean takeover besides a whole bunch of needless deaths and economic destruction?
BTW, in six years our stock market has more than doubled, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are the highest they have ever been recorded, our job market has improved tremendously, and access to medical care is greater than it has ever been.
The only bigger joke is listening or reading clowns like you post about
Aculpulcogoldfan83 needs to quit vacationing in Colorado.Originally posted by goldfan83:
Please give us the non-queer Lindsay Graham argument. What do you think you think Qaddafi and UBL think? What is in our strategic interest or capability to prevent a Crimean takeover besides a whole bunch of needless deaths and economic destruction?
BTW, in six years our stock market has more than doubled, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are the highest they have ever been recorded, our job market has improved tremendously, and access to medical care is greater than it has ever been.
The only bigger joke is listening or reading clowns like you post about
Where are the answers bro? Is that only silence I here? Are you just asking for Obama to plop down his black dick and get Americans killed for nothing?Originally posted by noble cane:
Aculpulcogoldfan83 needs to quit vacationing in Colorado.Originally posted by goldfan83:
Please give us the non-queer Lindsay Graham argument. What do you think you think Qaddafi and UBL think? What is in our strategic interest or capability to prevent a Crimean takeover besides a whole bunch of needless deaths and economic destruction?
BTW, in six years our stock market has more than doubled, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are the highest they have ever been recorded, our job market has improved tremendously, and access to medical care is greater than it has ever been.
The only bigger joke is listening or reading clowns like you post about
Oh well. Let me clarify why "those" americans are getting killed. Its to protect the very speech you are butchering right now. Their sacrifice also allows anyone on this board to call you a moron, idiot and spoiled brat. But I doubt they'd sink to that level.Originally posted by goldfan83:
Where are the answers bro? Is that only silence I here? Are you just asking for Obama to plop down his black dick and get Americans killed for nothing?Originally posted by noble cane:
Aculpulcogoldfan83 needs to quit vacationing in Colorado.Originally posted by goldfan83:
Please give us the non-queer Lindsay Graham argument. What do you think you think Qaddafi and UBL think? What is in our strategic interest or capability to prevent a Crimean takeover besides a whole bunch of needless deaths and economic destruction?
BTW, in six years our stock market has more than doubled, corporate profits as a percentage of GDP are the highest they have ever been recorded, our job market has improved tremendously, and access to medical care is greater than it has ever been.
The only bigger joke is listening or reading clowns like you post about
"Obama gets the Presidency and Russia invades Ukraine. "
-------------------------
Remember all the Jokes the lefties poked at Palin for her comments.
Well I guess she has proven to be smarter than they are ( Letterman, Mahr, . . .)
-------------------------
Remember all the Jokes the lefties poked at Palin for her comments.
Well I guess she has proven to be smarter than they are ( Letterman, Mahr, . . .)
Didn't the Russians invade Georgia when Bush II was president...
This just seems something that the Russians do regardless of who is seating in our oval office...
This is like saying that Bin Laden waited until Clinton was out of office and Bush II was in office to attack our country...
I think it is more a matter of timing than who is seating in the oval office...
This just seems something that the Russians do regardless of who is seating in our oval office...
This is like saying that Bin Laden waited until Clinton was out of office and Bush II was in office to attack our country...
I think it is more a matter of timing than who is seating in the oval office...
Absolutely correct. Putin has been restoring the Soviet Union piece by piece and will keep doing so if not stopped. I don't know what the death count is, but the estimated count in the Georigian invasion was less than 1,000 according to wikipedia. Who knows how many so far in Ukraine.
But I don't get the point unless Bush2 doing nothing in Georgia means we should basically do nothing in Ukraine. Maybe both Bush and BHO are right to (perhaps fecklessly) ignore the problem or do only what looks good in the media.
I think we should be careful and "walk softly, but carry a big stick". The perception now is that BHO is walking softly and has thrown away the stick. Neither of those two (Bush/Obama) are/were/will ever be Reagan. Carter maybe.
What would Putin do if we did what Kennedy tried and invade Cuba? Anyone interested? Well, we did invade Grenada because we had just cause. But I kind of like the "no foreign intanglements" argument. Except it didn't work in WWII.
This post was edited on 3/11 10:26 AM by rabidTU
Big differences between Ukraine/Crimea and Georgia (2008).
The Russians moved an entire army to the Ossetia region in 2008 (a Russian "Army" would roughly to an American "Corps" in that it is a grouping of division sized forces). The 58th Army vastly outnumbered the entire Georgian military and Putin honestly thought he was going to effect a regime change in Georgia. The Russians met with some success but failed in their overarching goal of a new government in Tbilisi. Equipment losses, delays, international pressure and overall poor military performance caused the Russians to reconsider.
The US took several major steps during the 2008 conflict. We already had Special Forces trainers working with the Georgian military and used them to supply anti-tank weapons. The US and NATO moved enough ships into the Black Sea that they had both a numerical and qualitative advantage over the Russian Black Sea Squadron (I remember the Russians saying they could sink all the NATO ships in 20 minutes at the time, much to the amusement of my buddies in the USN). The US also flew about 2,000 Georgian soldiers from Afghanistan to Georgia (8/10 - 8/11 IIRC) to bolster the Georgian war efforts (Georgia had signed on to be an ally in the GWOT). It was pretty obvious to everyone except the press that the US was pushing back against Putin's plan.
For the Ukraine/Crimea situation, we have moved one Burke class destroyer into the Black Sea and 4 * F15E, 6 * F16 and 1 * AWACS to Poland. NATO has done nothing.
Not really a matter of timing. The Russians failed in Georgia and will succeed in Ukraine/Crimea. While I don't think there is really anything Obama can do (or should do sans significant NATO support) please don't compare the two as being similar situations. They are not. Putin learned from his mistake and ensured that he took NATO out of the game this time.
Thanks!
